.jpg)
UPI photo
John Bolton, former ambassador to the U.N. under the Bush administration, apparently has a novel idea of "ensuring peace" in the middle east. A nuclear first strike on Iran.
During a conference at the University of Chicago sponsored by the University Young Republicans and Chicago Friends of Israel, ironically entitled "Ensuring Peace," Bolton stated once again:
Negotiations have failed, and so too have sanctions. So we’re at a very unhappy point — a very unhappy point — where unless Israel is prepared to use nuclear weapons against Iran’s program, Iran will have nuclear weapons in the very near future.
While Bolton coyly avoided explicitly advocating the use of nuclear weapons by Israel on Iran, the logical conclusion of his statement is clear. If negotiations have failed, then a nuclear first strike by Israel on Iran's nuclear power plants is justifiable. Bolton, however, fails to mention that Iran shares a border with Russia, the country that helped Iran build those facilities and who actually does possess nuclear weapons capable of striking the U.S. and Israel.
Exactly which negotiations Bolton is referring to remain unclear. Iran has already agreed to inspections of its nuclear facilities by the IAEA and is a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Israel, on the other hand, has not done either.
Before being ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton has a history of taking the most "hawkish" stances on foreign policy. He was a signatory of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) document entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses that advocated ongoing war in the middle east as a means of protecting America's strategic interests. In a response to a comment made by former CIA operative Robert Baer in 2007, Bolton stated on Fox News that he "absolutely" hopes the U.S. will attack Iran. When a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report was released in 2007 saying that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, Bolton was one of the first to criticize it.
It is nothing new for John Bolton or any of his neoconservative cohorts to advocate an Israeli strike against Iran. What is new, however, is the use of the word "nuclear," especially in the context of a conference about "ensuring peace." Hopefully it was just a ploy to spread the parameters of the debate about Iran. An Israeli nuclear strike on Iran is highly unlikely without U.S. approval and there are undoubtedly saner minds in the administration that would prevail. But the mere suggestion of a nuclear first strike should wake people up to the fact that maniacs like Bolton, who would risk starting World War Three, are given air time in our media and access to our young minds.
For more info:
Comments
I wish you Americans would stop using other countries in performing your ever-boring partisan Punch & Judy show. We Iranians are sick of being your tool in this asinine and self-interested game. Stop prescribing, attempting to extrapolate or suggest...PHYSICIAN HEAL THYSELF! Haughty cultural imperialist.
Why is anything John Bolton says worth reporting. The man is totally crazy.
The fact that this despicable man is given airtime shows the true nature of the US and why it's hated so much
I agree 100% with Mr. Bolton, Israel has no choice, either they wipe out Iran's capacity to produce nuclear weapons immediately or they wait until Tehran vaporizes Tel Aviv and by that point they lose upwards of a million citizens. Israel does have about 200 F-16s and F-15s and some ballistic missles but these assests armed conventionally just do not pack enough punch to completely destroy Iran's 4 nuclear sites. We are all waiting for Israel to do the right thing. Mark Montgomery boboberg@nyc.rr.com
Why are we reporting insanity. This guy, and people like him shoul be locked up.
Why comments by John Bolton are reported at all baffles me and many others. He is a crank and should be ignored.
James
Here is the proper thing to do with this CRAZY man--Give him a rope and let him hang himself.
Mark Montgomery, you belong to the same stable along with other donkeys such as Bolton & Co. Or maybe I should say you all belong to the dead donkeys' cemetery. No one gives a damn about dead wood that was thrown out of power.
Israel nor the United States can dictate the direction of another sovereign nation. We don't like other countries telling us what to do how do we expect the inverse to be accepted? China and Russia will not sit idly by, and they have nukes and oil. Best to make friends and corral Israel and her fanatics.
My sense is that John Bolton thinks that he is 'all-knowing'. With that said, let us never do what JOHN BOLTON suggests!
Bolton's comment demonstrates a frightening ignorance of atomic weaponry and diplomacy. Above ground nuclear testing in the 40's and 50's clearly demonstrated that radioactive particles are sent into the upper atmosphere where they can travel thousands of miles on winds at high altitude. Where does he think the fallout will go? After Chernobyl, cows as far as 1000 miles away in Sweden were giving irradiated milk and that was from a slow leak. Depending on the prevailing winds, it is possible Israel could poison its own people or our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan by doing this. How does he think Russia would react to nuclear fallout on their soil? He's either totally ignorant, or worse yet, does not care. That maniac Bolton should be in an insane asylum, not giving speeches at universities.
Perhaps Iran feels a wee bit threatened that Israel's strike force (the US) has had boots on the ground for 8 years on both their eastern and western borders. Hell, I don't blame them one bit for looking at producing nuclear weapons (if in fact they are)...that deterrent may be the only way they feel they can protect themselves. As a sovereign nation they have a right to do that. And that is just another reason to get our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan...our presence there just causes instability and turmoil in the region. Also, Israel should be pressured to sign the non-proliferation treaty just as everyone else did. When those two things are done, then we can justifiably tell Iran they cannot produce nukes. Until then, we just do not have a logical case to do so.
Mark Montgomery, by your logic the world would have been a cinder generations ago. Yes, there were those back in the '40s and '50s who wanted to preemptively attack the USSR and China with nuclear weapons before they had the chance to 'get us.'
Imagine what shape we'd be in today, had those warhawks prevailed. Large areas of North America, Asia and Europe would still be uninhabitable due to irradiated soil. Mark, you would probably have never been born, and any ancestors of yours would have been fried to a crisp in the initial attacks, dead from subsequent radiation poisoning, or starving in the grip of nuclear winter.
There's another thing: Iran has nothing to gain from a nuclear attack on Israel -- the mullahs well know that a half-hour after any such attack were launched, Iran would be devastated by nuclear missiles from the US and Europe. Contrary to your skewed, hysterical view of the Iranian leadership, none of them have shown themselves to be the least bit suicidal.
Apparently for the world it is easier to accept the destruction of Israeli population centers by Iranian nuclear weapons and millions of Israeli civilians killed, than it is to envisage the destruction of Iranian nuclear development sites by Israeli tactical nuclear weapons with hundreds of Iranian technicians killed. Why is this so?
@ Mladen Andrijasevic: It's because the death from even tactical nuclear weapons would not be confined to Iranian technicians and I can't think of anything that would turn both the Arab Street and most of the rest of the world against Israel than such a preemptive attack. Any 'victory' gleaned from such a 'limited' nuclear attack would be temporary and Pyrrhic. Pakistan, a Muslim nation with a nuclear arsenal, might very well be encouraged by such an attack on Iran to respond in kind, so there would be no gain. At the least, the Arab nations on the Middle East would be forced into a massive conventional war against Israel -- would you suggest Israel also attacks these nations with nukes? When, exactly, would this game end? When every possible threat of Arab retaliation has been removed by nuclear attacks from Israel? As I said before, eventually, that much radiation would start killing Israelis. Is that your answer to the problem?
To the writer of the article: you suggested Bolton's words ought not to be given coverage, but you're extending his words to the readers yourself. He is a maniac and should be ignored.
Response to Jeff: Thanks for your comment. If you'd rather read articles about a balloon boy, runaway brides or celebrities you have the corporate media for that. I am not giving Bolton's words any credibility by reporting them. I am pointing out the insanity of his words and the sad fact that people like him are given credibilty by the mainstream media and any organization that pays him to speak.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!